SU-PHIL2 Oral Exam 1 Prep

It seems to me that once we depart from the notion of TS and TO, the later conversations about consiquentialism, objectivism, and justice ceases to discuss what exactly is “right”/“wrong” and instead how to bring it about; yet, under a notion of command theory, the latter considerations of what “to do” (i.e., whether to be consiquentialist, etc.) can be waved away by sang “people do it/people believe in it”. Therefore, isn’t there an order of operations required or at least an assumption of some kind of objectivism which allows the remaining conversations to proceed? How does consiquentialist theories command deliberation? I know it is not a deliberative theory, but how does the consiquentialist ask one to go about having choices? That is, surely, as the readings mention, one mustn’t over-think aspects which require spontaneity? This is a higher level question: especially for more “extreme” arguments like Singer, how is it supposed to be taken? What Singer advocates directly is practically impossible to implement, even in a weaker version. Doesn’t this show the absurdity of globally moral thinking? If it doesn’t, how is it supposed to be implemented?